To cross the boundaries of "self" is to lose an "I". Where are those boundaries, have you ever been selfless? If moon is not "I", I should be able to loose the self, just by watching the moon. I cannot lose myself, because I would be in that place in which I got lost. In other words, If by watching the moon I lost myself, I shouldn't be seeing the moon, because I am not there. But I see the moon.... even when I'm completely absorbed by looking, and not aware of "self" as separate entity inside the body. So, self is always present, as a body, mind, act, or... moon. There is nothing that is not "I", and if something is everything, it cannot be something. There is completely no difference between no self, and self, and both are redundant. You can say, there is no I, or everything is I, no difference.

It's quite difficult to say everything is I. In fact I think it would be mistaken to do so. These days I feel comfortable with dualism. Not that I believe any of it to be substantial or definite. But generally speaking dualism is quite nice. Quite a sane place to be.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

It is difficult, and not welcomed! I just presented a view, that seems to be consistent, I am not advising to call everything I. Actually now, when I spent some time thinking about it, it starting to make perfect sense. I mean, duality of self. We have two spheres of consciousness (left and right). Those are two, quite different, personalities. Although they share object, they differ with perspective. Both present themselves with different "kind" of I. We step between them, I changes from "left" to "right", but there is always an I. Sometimes located in time (I am), sometimes timeless ("moon"). Two personalities fighting for freedom. One (left) located always in present moment, and one (right) jumping between past,present, and future. Both have the same goal, to appease conscience. As left is not able to comprehend present sacrifice for future gain (as it lacks concept of future), it creates resistance. People are like conjoined twins, that sometimes (quite often) want to go in different directions. They start to fight using punishment and reward. The punishment of "left" is suffering, "right" uses Fear. The reward is bliss and fulfillment.

Jesus said, "A person cannot mount two horses or bend two bows.And a slave cannot serve two masters, otherwise that slave will honor the one and offend the other."Moment of bliss costs fear, fulfillment is paid by suffering. We fear to give ourselves to bliss, and it takes effort to gain fulfillment.

We all know that there is a "path" of excitement, pleasure and joy that we can take, but we are afraid to do that. We are afraid to abandon our job and go to Ibiza. On the other hand, we can chase fulfillment in the future, but the weariness will try to stop us in the present. We often feel tired after 10 minutes of doing something that is suppose to bring profits in future. To find peace, we need to choose one, or make a peace between two, but actually there is no choice. As "left" can't go to the future, "right" needs to return to present. Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in a single house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move from here!' and it will move."Equanimityperpetuum mobile. One method is to drag attention to present moment over and over again. We can also let go of deliberate effort, leaving "right" without a driver by non-meditation.

"I had dreamed once before of the problem of the self and the ego. In that earlier dream I was on a hiking trip. I was walking along a little road through a hilly landscape; the sun was shining and I had a wide view in all directions. Then I came to a small wayside chapel. The door was ajar, and I went in. To my surprise there was no image of the Virgin on the altar, and no crucifix either, but only a wonderful flower arrangement. But then I saw that on the floor in front of the altar, facing me, sat a yogi in lotus posture, in deep meditation. When I looked at him more closely, I realized that he had my face. I started in profound fright, and awoke with the thought: "Aha, so he is the one who is meditating me. He has a dream, and I am it." I knew that when he awakened, I would no longer be." Carl Jung

This dream is indicitive of Jung's fears. He was wary of India and the sadhus and certainly of loss of ego and identity. Jung was very keen to bolster his 'scientific' reputation. When a chance came to meet the great guru Sri Ramana Maharshi he resisted and skirted around the opportunity. Definately forfeited blessings and opportunity.

Even we all need guidelines by clarifying pointing words; in fact Self, selflessness, lochness, whatever isn't? I spent some days in Scotland to find lochness and exhausted "I" was dragged by many thoughts through the rain and this was coming and going in mind: even I want to get rid of ego which is keeping me painfully locked up with all its grasping to correctnesses, not fairnessess,......, it doesn't work dragged in thinking, grasping phenomena. I mean as far as I understand; holding on a right term will not free me but keep me locked up.Easy to say all this and I can also say it with many other words as well. Flushhhh.

Oh here, few simple words:

This stubborn material of frozen mindas hard as diamond stone, striving in its painfull battleto cut through immaterial peace.Devotion now is all I am, pleaseCompassion take me home.

There is one strength of Sutta Mahamudra, which is very unique to it, which is to see the difference between having thoughts and not having thoughts.

I like what chandrakirti said that because the nature has no essence, everything can come out. In Dzoghchen, there is a statement of unstructured.

So, the more you have thoughts, the more it actually shows you there is nothing. This is quite an unique practice of sutra Mahamudra.

If you have a thought "I want to eat", that thought actually shows you there is no essence. If you have a thought "this is I", that thought actually shows you there is no essence.

Thought has 2 distinct feature: 1. The story. 2. The nature.

The nature is unseen by ordinary people. They will always see the story.

But if we really see, actually the changing of story is the best friend to show that there is actually nothing, no essence.

This is very different with when you see there is nothing when there is no thought.

In Sutta Mahamudra, besides it trains you to see there is nothing when there is no thought, it also teach you to see there is nothing when you have thoughts.

When this training starts to mature, your thoughts really become your 24/7 guru that keep telling you indirectly there is no essence and no thoughts from the appearing of thoughts.

This is a very interesting paradox from Sutta Mahamudra.

When this is matured, samadhi is automatically perfect, together with vipassana.

There is really no path and no result to gain.

And there is no fear with having thought of I or no I.

Because right now, you can't escape from no essence. All delusions running in your head right now are actually wisdom that keep remind us there is no such thing.

It is understanding that make all this possible, not effort to be right or to be perfect, because that kind of effort at the end just shift another ignorant to another form of ignorant.

I am not here nor there.I am not right nor wrong.I do not exist neither non-exist.I am not I nor non-I.I am not in samsara nor nirvana.To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

yes, this is correct. self = I. As long as the person is trapped within oneself, the person does not see itself.....so the self must see itself, it must know oneself so to break out of this trap.When one sees onself.....it is empty, it will realize that there were never a self in the first place.....hence selfless.....self aware.

yes, this is correct. self = I. As long as the person is trapped within oneself, the person does not see itself

That is why I'm asking about boundaries. No matter how deluded into view of "self" one is, he still will hit the problem of finding the boundaries of self. If chair is not "I" then by totally dedicating my mind to the chair, all consequences of no-self should appear. But the thing is, it is not the case. Why? Because "I" is everything that is experiences, and everything experienced is all there is. Saying that "this is me" and "this ain't me" is simply not true. People just accepted this mistake, and continued. Every activity of the external world presents itself as an electrical impulse to our brain. Then it is projected into this diversity of appearances. There is not even one person that perceived green or red, all are creations of the mind. Actually, there is nothing that we experienced as it is, everything is projection of the mind, and this projection is nothing but the mind. How then can we find in it something that is not it? What happens when we go against this mind by stating that "I don't like this", "I hate this"? We go against ourselves, and this hatred, or whatever it is, is reflected back like an echo. When I hit someone, not only do I hit an physical being (still don't know that), but I hit myself projecting that person and there is always response in a form of feelings. We identify ourselves with this "I" within external world. But:"Don't you understand that the one who made the inside is also the one who made the outside?"

oushi wrote:That is why I'm asking about boundaries. No matter how deluded into view of "self" one is, he still will hit the problem of finding the boundaries of self. If chair is not "I" then by totally dedicating my mind to the chair, all consequences of no-self should appear. But the thing is, it is not the case. Why? Because "I" is everything that is experiences, and everything experienced is all there is. Saying that "this is me" and "this ain't me" is simply not true. People just accepted this mistake, and continued. Every activity of the external world presents itself as an electrical impulse to our brain. Then it is projected into this diversity of appearances. There is not even one person that perceived green or red, all are creations of the mind. Actually, there is nothing that we experienced as it is, everything is projection of the mind, and this projection is nothing but the mind. How then can we find in it something that is not it? What happens when we go against this mind by stating that "I don't like this", "I hate this"? We go against ourselves, and this hatred, or whatever it is, is reflected back like an echo. When I hit someone, not only do I hit an physical being (still don't know that), but I hit myself projecting that person and there is always response in a form of feelings. We identify ourselves with this "I" within external world. But:"Don't you understand that the one who made the inside is also the one who made the outside?"

Am not sure if one who is deluded will actually find the boundaries of the self without proper attention in a view of seeking for it in the first place.This understanding of the self cannot be arrived by luck or chance.....so yes, using the chair is a good example to illustrate the point.In terms of "I" this is actually created by the mind, imagination, experience and beliefs.

Saying there is NO self does not answer the question why the actual body/mind/consciousness that exist right now.

When you say "I don't like this", "I hate this" is most likely to be the ego or I like you say, the ego/I, is simply rejecting what is being presented but is reacting by defence.....if one truly understands the self to be no self, this will not happen, there will be no doubt.

This is where the real interest lies, the old "I" now crossed will discover a new "I".The old "I" is not real and the new "I" is real, they are opposites, black and white if you like. Both "I"s have opposite actions too.

When you say "inside" and "outside", am assuming you mean the old "I" and new "I" above.....then yes, this would be correct.These are two sides of the same coin.....which means.....there is another level higher?.....thoughts?

No , you can never truely "lose" the "Ego I/Self" concept....even if is an illusion of your mind.That arbitrary divison of Self and Other is also an illusion of mind....but it still can't be "lost" ever.The whole point, however, is to realise personally that those two concepts...the Ego/Self and the Myself/Other devide are really only illusionary concepts...generated by your mind/perception.It's somewhat like finding a barrier of rocks fallen onto a path up a mountain road.You really can't continue up that road until you somehow get around or over that pile of rocks that blocks your way.Once you do cross the barrier somehow, you can look back at that barrier....it's still there...but now that you're past it, that's no longer important.It took me, personally, some time to get over or around that barrier. Until I could, I couldn't make any "progress" on my path.The fundamental thing, at least in my opinion, is not to let the illusion of that barrier control your thoughts and perceptions...not to be controlled by that arbitrary Self/Other devide.The illusionary nature of that "I/Self and Not I/Other" devide...even though it seems to exist in the "real world" of "forms and illusions" was a barrier I had to pass to make any progress.That barrier still exists....but now I can see it for the self-generated illusion it always was.

Shame on you Shakyamuni for setting the precedent of leaving home.Did you think it was not there-- in your wife's lovely face in your baby's laughter?Did you think you had to go elsewhere (simply) to find it? from - Judyth Collin The Layman's Lament From What Book, 1998, p. 52 Edited by Gary Gach

oushi wrote:To cross the boundaries of "self" is to lose an "I". Where are those boundaries, have you ever been selfless? If moon is not "I", I should be able to loose the self, just by watching the moon. I cannot lose myself, because I would be in that place in which I got lost. In other words, If by watching the moon I lost myself, I shouldn't be seeing the moon, because I am not there. But I see the moon.... even when I'm completely absorbed by looking, and not aware of "self" as separate entity inside the body. So, self is always present, as a body, mind, act, or... moon. There is nothing that is not "I", and if something is everything, it cannot be something. There is completely no difference between no self, and self, and both are redundant. You can say, there is no I, or everything is I, no difference.

It is just consciousness that moves and arises or vanishes. "self" or "I" or "mine" are just instances of consciousness. In actuality there is nothing. But saying "there is nothing" is from the perspective of moving consciousness because when consciousness does not arise there is not even the determination "there is nothing". These words are not my words.

Nothing wrote:Am not sure if one who is deluded will actually find the boundaries of the self without proper attention in a view of seeking for it in the first place.

No one will find the boundaries, no one did find them. That’s the whole point.

Nothing wrote:This is where the real interest lies, the old "I" now crossed will discover a new "I".The old "I" is not real and the new "I" is real, they are opposites, black and white if you like. Both "I"s have opposite actions too.

First of all, “not real” things does not exist. You don’t fall into delusion that you have an elephant in your ear. So the only “I”, as you call it, is perfectly fine where it is. Same goes for new “I”. Nothing disappears, nothing appears.

Nothing wrote:When you say "inside" and "outside", am assuming you mean the old "I" and new "I" above.....then yes, this would be correct.These are two sides of the same coin.....which means.....there is another level higher?.....thoughts?

That was a quote from Gospel of Thomas. Inside is built out of experience that arises inside the body (feelings, thoughts, etc.) and outside is the external world. Inner and outer self. That external world doesn’t simply happen to us, it needs to be projected. That which is experiences as the outer world, is the “new I”, which has always been there. While deluded, we discard it as something alien, not a part of us. They are not opposites, they are one, and should be treated as one presence before the mind. Not mind, and nothing but the mind. Now, does this make sense?:Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in a single house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move from here!' and it will move."

Quiet Heart wrote:Once you do cross the barrier somehow, you can look back at that barrier....it's still there...but now that you're past it, that's no longer important.

Poetic, but without sense… unless you are talking about some other barrier. Once you do cross the barrier of “I”, you can look back?

Quiet Heart wrote:The illusionary nature of that "I/Self and Not I/Other" devide...even though it seems to exist in the "real world" of "forms and illusions" was a barrier I had to pass to make any progress.

Once again, “I” cannot pass the barrier of “I”. It can extend it, but not pass.

Quiet Heart wrote:Once you do cross the barrier somehow, you can look back at that barrier....it's still there...but now that you're past it, that's no longer important.

Poetic, but without sense… unless you are talking about some other barrier. Once you do cross the barrier of “I”, you can look back?

-------------------------Precisely.I can look back, simply because I persoanlly saw through the illusion of that "barrier of I" and the seperation of that "I/me and They/other" devideBecause I know them now as merely illusions....dream figures within a dream....I can percieve them clearly as illusions generated by my mind/perception.It's like looking at a scene in a movie....I can percieve those objects in the movie as real....but at the same time I know it's really a movie.

Quiet Heart wrote:The illusionary nature of that "I/Self and Not I/Other" devide...even though it seems to exist in the "real world" of "forms and illusions" was a barrier I had to pass to make any progress.

Once again, “I” cannot pass the barrier of “I”. It can extend it, but not pass.

----------------If necessary then, just say the new I never actually "passed" that barrier.But the new I was created on the other side of that barrier....and that new I can see that barrier from the other side of that barrier....and understands the barrier's illusionary nature.But that's all words anyhow....I had to actually realise this fact....beyond the mere words.That's what took so long for me to realise.

Shame on you Shakyamuni for setting the precedent of leaving home.Did you think it was not there-- in your wife's lovely face in your baby's laughter?Did you think you had to go elsewhere (simply) to find it? from - Judyth Collin The Layman's Lament From What Book, 1998, p. 52 Edited by Gary Gach

oushi wrote:No one will find the boundaries, no one did find them. That’s the whole point.

As mentioned already, the boundaries are all mind made, everyone has different ones but to physically track them down it would be impossible as it is in the mind, yes, you cannot find them.If it is a plot of land then we can find it at the fence line between plots of land.....in the mind, it cannot be defined as clear.Afterall, it is not important to find the exact boundary but to cross it.

oushi wrote:First of all, “not real” things does not exist. You don’t fall into delusion that you have an elephant in your ear. So the only “I”, as you call it, is perfectly fine where it is. Same goes for new “I”. Nothing disappears, nothing appears.

Yes, it would be correct that this new "I" which is discovered had always been there, it is just that people were not aware of it....hence as you say, "nothing disappears, nothing appears."The "not real" thing is something which I use to describe my process but it is not important, it would appear that you have a different approach than mine but heading in the same direction and probably same destination.

oushi wrote:That was a quote from Gospel of Thomas. Inside is built out of experience that arises inside the body (feelings, thoughts, etc.) and outside is the external world. Inner and outer self. That external world doesn’t simply happen to us, it needs to be projected. That which is experiences as the outer world, is the “new I”, which has always been there. While deluded, we discard it as something alien, not a part of us. They are not opposites, they are one, and should be treated as one presence before the mind. Not mind, and nothing but the mind. Now, does this make sense?:Jesus said, "If two make peace with each other in a single house, they will say to the mountain, 'Move from here!' and it will move."

Well.....now I can see your approach better.....it would appear that you are using a different method than mine but the aim is the same.When I mentioned opposite, it is simply the other half.As nothing cannot exist without something else.....old "I" cannot exist alone.....it needs the new "I".....hence they are as one as you have stated.This is why I mentioned two sides of the same coin.....meaning duality.....a balance between the two "I"s.When you say "make peace with each other".....hence I mentioned another level higher......interesting.

The thing is, only the self of the left hemisphere, the old "I", can make divisions. The other one is incapable of perceiving duality. From the "left" perspective there is peace to make, path to travel, realization to achieve. From the "right" perspective, everything is one presence before the mind. Nothing to do, nothing to attain, no path to travel. Awareness jumps between those two constantly. So, people are "awakened" many times during the day. What is the difference? "Left" is the realm of deliberate act, in "right" deliberate cannot exist. That is why one cannot get awakened by deliberate actions. I tried. I was able to get to the "left", but in that moment deliberate will dissolved, and I simply forgot to stay there, and went back. Entered again, and came back. Some kind of force is puling you down, and without desire to stay, you simply return... and all desires melt there.I was lucky enough to realize that deliberate effort to find realization is pointless, as you will bounce off the gate. Quite logical, you cannot enter the "effortless" by effort. You can do it by relaxing, and accepting.

How to make peace? First, we need to find where the fight takes place. It is not that the new "I" needs to be conquered, as it doesn't defend at all. It is the old "I" that defends and keep on fighting. Fighting with the world perceived as external. And it is true, but the problem is, the external world appears through the outer I, or "new I" as you named it. Everything we see, smell, taste, feel or hear is the "new I". If we discard something we discard the "new I". When we dislike something, we dislike "new I", and we defend against things that we don't like, thing that are wrong, etc. We defend against awakening. So, to make peace means to make peace with everything without exception, as everything is "I". There is no greater love. It is not possible to love everything, as there are things one will not even accept. What needs to be understood, is that this which is perceived is not the thing we hate, but pure "I" reflecting reality. By hitting someone, we may hit someone in the "outside" world, I don't know that, but we certainly hit ourselves in the form or projection of the outside. Every hatred is also self-hatred, every love is always self-love.